Performance-based evaluation for superintendents: combining formative and summative approaches to address procedures, policies and products

School Administrator, Oct, 2004 by Edward W. Costa, II

When I was hired as superintendent in East Longmeadow, Mass., in 1998, I followed a revolving door of three superintendents who had been dismissed after their first contract expired. The community was divided on many issues, especially regarding the superintendency and the direction of the school system.

Hired with a unanimous decision by the school board, my marching orders were to bring the community together, resolve differences and move the school system back on track.

East Longmeadow is a community of 18,000 residents in southwestern Massachusetts with a student population of 2,900. We are a suburban district, 95 miles west of Boston, that still maintains New England values and traditions. Family comes first, meaning education is held as a high priority. The community demands excellence and nothing less.

First Evaluation

My entire first year was spent conducting focus groups in the school district and in our community to flesh out a rationale for a school and community strategic plan. Years 2-4 brought the strategic plan to fruition and I am happy to say our community and school system now are on the same page and working together harmoniously.

During that first year, I also was responsible for working with the school board in developing a performance measurement instrument that would be used to evaluate me. The original instrument contained six performance areas and 47 criteria on which to be evaluated. This evaluation was summative in nature but lacked the capacity to recognize gradations in performance. Additionally, it did not contain any formative evaluation components for goal setting and improvement measures.

During the 2002-2003 year, the school committee appointed a subcommittee of the chair and one member to work with me in collecting current research on superintendent evaluations and pay-for-performance language. The committee chair and I attended the American Association of School Administrators and National School Boards Association conferences, where we found three sessions on superintendent evaluation and collected research and books on the subject through the conference bookstores. We assimilated all the relevant research into what we thought was the best of the best.

During the year, the Education Commission of the States issued a policy brief on No Child Left Behind that spoke clearly to school leadership accountability: "The newly authorized ESEA Act reflects and reinforces a major shift in thinking about the roles and responsibilities of school board members, district superintendents and principals.... (S)chool and district leaders are being held responsible for bringing about change and improvement." About the same time, authors Michael DiPaola and James Stronge published their book Superintendent Evaluation Handbook, whose many references added greatly to our research.

Finally, in the fall of 2003, the school board subcommittee and I presented our research findings and draft instruments to the full school board for review. After two months of in-depth review, discussion and minor edits to the draft document, the school board unanimously approved the research and the newly formed evaluation instrument, job description and school board policy on superintendent evaluation.

Lessons Learned

As we collected research, we found many problems inherent with current superintendent evaluations. Most importantly, we found that barely 25 percent of school boards conduct any form of superintendent evaluation. Of those that do, 75 percent do not evaluate the superintendent on an annual basis. Most evaluation instruments do not combine formative and summative evaluation components. Finally, most superintendent evaluation instruments lack "school and district improvement" as their main focus.

School board evaluation policies and processes were also troublesome, as indicated by our research. Most superintendent evaluations were narrative paragraphs written by various school board members that did not compare performance to any specific standards of performance. Many school districts lacked a policy on superintendent evaluation and superintendent job descriptions. The few we found did not align the job description with the evaluation instrument being used. School boards also admitted that their superintendent employment contracts did not specify the evaluation process to be used.

Finally, the research indicated inconsistencies with school boards in the evaluation process. Some boards rely on only the chair to evaluate the superintendent. Other boards ask each member to write an individual narrative evaluation without any summary consensus of opinions. The major problem with these approaches is that the school board needs to speak in one unified voice on the superintendent's performance evaluation.

Our Outcomes

Research suggests the use of both formative and summative evaluations. We decided the superintendent's evaluation would be a two-part evaluation. Part 1, the formative evaluation, consists of the annual goals, growth and management by objectives. The superintendent uses SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Results-oriented and Timely).